AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD BEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)

GRADE

TYPE HON	x	I

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

I	RECORD  REVIEW

'J	S	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

1-Y_ES_-+-  No---t  (b) (6)	(b) (6)
x

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

(b) (6)	x
x x x
x

JSSUF.S

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A42.00	"{'':'' ·,1Wl[EX_i	[W».,mfl!mf:J	1"J.ltJBl	jjj: . ' :lff. cJ
l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO 1HE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

11Jun 2015	FD-2013-00121

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

(b) (6)

\:ifri fu!  lisait9. ·:I	gL;:·::- . ;ii	l-:
TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFnlEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD :Z076J '1001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00121	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 11 June 2015. A personal statement and a revised personal  statement were submitted at the hearing. The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board denies the change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety  of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of narrative reason or change of reenlistment code.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. Inreviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. In order to adhere to Mental Health Amendments to 10 USC 1553, a physician with specialized training on mental health disorders was present for this board.

Issue 1. The applicant contends her discharge was wrong and unfair.

Issue 2. The applicant contends she should have been permitted to retrain to a different career field prior to discharge.

Issue 3. The applicant contends poor leadership in her unit led to her discharge.

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of her discharge. The applicant does submit that she believes she deserves a second chance. The Board considered all the matters submitted by  the applicant and thoroughly considered her contentions that her discharge was wrong and unfair, that she should have been provided with an opportunity to retrain, and that poor leadership in her unit lead to her discharge. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no
evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Further, the board did not find a correlation between any possible retraining opportunity and her discharge nor did it find that the Air Force was required to allow her to retrain prior to discharge. Specifically, the Air Force would have had to make an exception to their policy to allow the applicant to retrain prior to completing 35 months of service.
Finally, while there may have been leadership issues in the applicant's unit and the applicant may have had personality conflicts with leadership, the Board does not find any inequity or impropriety in the underlying discharge.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. The Board understands her desire to rejoin the Air Force and appreciates her previous service to our country. However, there is no inequity or impropriety in her discharge. The Board concluded the narrative reason appropriately	

characterized her term of service. After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify a change in narrative reason or reenlistment code.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief